Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-40 are pending. Claims 14-40 are withdrawn. Claims 1-13 are examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species IA and IIA, in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 1, recites “tilt angle less than 20 degrees”. Please consider modifying to “tilt angle is less than 20 degrees”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beck et al. (US 2014/0261642).
Regarding claim 1, Beck discloses a solar energy support system (holding system for mounting a photovoltaic module, see abstract) comprising:
one or more stilt (2/2a) assemblies configured to be installed onto an installation surface in a grid pattern, each stilt assembly including stilts extending different heights above the installation surface (shown in fig. 1, see para [0053]), and
wherein the stilts within the stilt assemblies are arranged so as to alternate heights within the grid pattern (shown in fig. 1, see para [0053]); and
one or more module support assemblies (bearing head 4/4a) each configured to be installed onto a column of one of the stilts (2/2a) so as to be substantially co-planar (first bearing head 4a coplanar with second bearing head 4a, first bearing head 4 coplanar with second bearing head 4) with one or more other installed module support assemblies (shown in fig. 1, see abstract and para [0053]-[0055]),
wherein each module support assembly (bearing head 4/4a) includes a securing mechanism (module clamps 16) configured to secure a solar energy module [0059]-[0064]).
Note: 4 and 4a are referred to bearing head in abstract and bearing plate in para [0053]-[0055]. Examiner has elected to use the term bearing head for 4 and 4a to prevent confusion when/if referring to bearing surface 28/28a.
Regarding claim 6, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein all stilts in the stilt assemblies have a same length (i.e., it is “possible to have bars (stilts) of equal length wherein, in this case, the ground support of the pair is driven deeper into the ground than the other ground support of the pair”, see para [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the different heights of the stilts are based on being installed at different depths relative to the installation surface (see discussion of claim 6, shown in fig. 8, see para [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the stilt assemblies are configured to be positioned at a distance apart to achieve a desired module tilt angle of the solar energy module relative to a horizon (see para [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the alternating heights of stilts in the stilt assemblies allows for a solar energy module secured to a first and second column of the stilt assemblies to face a different direction than a solar energy module secured to a second and third column of the stilt assemblies (shown in fig. 1, see para [0053]-[0055]).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See also MPEP § 2125.
Regarding claim 13, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, further comprising a ground brace (28/28a, bearing surface) configured to be installed onto the stilt so as to abut the installation surface (see fig. 8, see abstract and para [0053]-[0055], [0068]).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See also MPEP § 2125.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 2- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further as follows:
Regarding claim 2, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein heights of the substantially co-planar module support assemblies are within 100 mm of each other. Beck does disclose “the ground supports are provided and set up such that, in the mounted state, the bearing plates of a ground support pair are spaced apart from each other vertically in relation to the base and from each other horizontally in adjustment to the preferably framed photovoltaic module and that they are aligned with each other at least in essence”, disclosing the alignment as a variable to be optimized (see para [0007]).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. alignment (100 mm of each other)], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein a distal end of a first stilt in a column of stilt assemblies height (row 10 or row 10a) is aligned in essence above the installation surface with a distal end of a last stilt in the same column of stilt assemblies (see abstract and para [0007]).
Beck does not disclose the distal ends are co-planar within 100 mm.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. alignment of distal ends (100 mm of each other)], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the stilts is positioned at a corner of the solar energy module (see figs. 1, 1a, 2a, 3, para [0053]-[0064]).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See also MPEP § 2125.
Beck does not disclose that at the corner as shown in figs. 1, 1a, 2a, and 3) is within 500 mm of a corner.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. at a corner (within 500 mm of a corner)], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Beck discloses a system of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the module tilt angle is less than 20 degrees relative to the horizon.
Beck discloses the tilt angle can be optimized in relation to the sun and/or to ensure that the modules are self-cleaned by rain and that, if necessary, a snow layer slips off (see para [0015] and [0054]), and therefore discloses the tilt as a result effective variable.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. at a corner (within 500 mm of a corner)], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Careless (US 2024/0305239).
Regarding claim 3, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein each of the module support assemblies includes a support bracket (16/16a, clamp) and a stilt receiver (4/4a, bearing head (plate)) connected to the support bracket (shown in figs. 3 and 4, see para [0058]-[0064]).
Beck does not disclose the bracket (16/16a) is pivotally connected to the stilt receiver (4/4a).
Careless is analogous art to Beck as Careless is directed to a system to mount solar modules (see abstract). Careless discloses a system to mount tilted solar modules that comprises a post (25) and a support assembly (30, sub-assembly) (see fig. 1, para [0069]). Careless discloses the support assembly comprises a support bracket (extrusion 150, panel support member) and a stilt receiver (elongated member 120, which sits in cradle 130 of post 25) (see para [0079]-[0083]). Careless discloses the support bracket (150) is rotatably connected to the stilt receiver (120) through male portion (140, part of 120) and female portion (155, part of 150) to form a ball and socket connection (see para [0080]-[0083]). Careless discloses the rotating connection allows rotation of the solar panel, allowing the tilt (see para [0083]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., the support assembly comprising a support bracket rotatably connected to the stilt receiver as disclosed by Careless) for another known device (i.e., the support assembly comprising a support bracket and stilt receiver of Beck), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., the rotation allowing the tilt of the solar modules).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delgado-Nanez (US 2023/0235923) (Nanez) and Scott et al. (US 2013/0335956).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the stilt is made of a flexible material that accommodates a distal end of the stilt being at a different location in an x-y plane than a location of penetration into the installation surface by the stilt after one or more solar energy modules are installed onto the module support assemblies (claim 11), wherein the offset allowance in an x-y plane is at least 10 mm (0.4 inch).
Nanez is analogous art to Beck as Nanez discloses that stilts (i.e., posts, poles, ground supports, etc.) of a solar cell module array deflect due to load of the mounted solar cell modules and as evidenced by Scott, applied wind loads (see Nanez fig. 9, para [0021], [0057]-[0058] and Scott para [0008]-[0009]). As stilts, piers, posts, ground supports, etc. are known to deflect, the stilts, piers, posts used in solar module arrays are flexible as used in the instant application. Further, Scott discloses those skilled in the art are able to calculated according to known methods the expected loads, the expected deflection, impact of stilt, pier, post, ground support, etc. height and design accordingly (see para [0009]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stilt (ground support) of Beck to be flexible, meaning to deflect due to load, because the design of a solar module array must structurally account for the weight and environmental loads of the installation.
Modified Beck does not disclose the designed ability to deflect is at least 10 mm (0.4 inch). Nanez and Scott disclose the amount of designed-in deflection to be a result effective variable.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. designed for deflection], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kitano et al. (US 2015/0144580) (discloses independent claim, offset post, aluminum post), Kim (US 2024/0322748) (discloses stilts with frame).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721